Trial reportEuropean journal of neurology2019
Improvement of medical judgments by numerical training in patients with multiple sclerosis.
Trial report in European journal of neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Face exploration, emotion recognition, and emotional enhancement of memory in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.PloS one · 2025Article
- Decision making and framing effects in multiple sclerosis.European journal of neurology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposePeople with multiple sclerosis (MS) have to face important decisions with regard to their medical treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a targeted cognitive training reduces framing effects and thus improves medical judgments.
methodsThis was a randomized, double-blind, cross-over study enrolling patients with relapsing-remitting MS and healthy controls (HCs). Participants were randomly assigned to training order A (first week, numerical training; second week, control training) or B (reverse order). The primary endpoint was changed in a framing task score (framing effect). In the framing task, participants evaluated the success of fictive medications on a 7-point scale. Medications were described in either positive or negative terms.
resultsA total of 37 patients and 73 HCs performed either training order A (n = 56) or B (n = 54). The framing effect decreased after the numerical training regardless of training order. No such decrease was found after the control training. Mean change in framing effect was -0.3 ± 0.8 after the numerical training and 0.03 ± 0.6 after the control training. This specific effect of training type was comparable between groups.
conclusionJudgments of medical information improve in both patients with relapsing-remitting MS and HCs after a targeted numerical training. Thus, a specific cognitive intervention may help patients making informed decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.